BETWEEN THE LINES

How's military gun ban working out?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah points out 'insanity of disarming U.S. soldiers' on base

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND. He is the author or co-author of 13 books that have sold more than 5 million copies, including his latest, "The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians, and the End of the Age." Before launching WND as the first independent online news outlet in 1997, he served as editor in chief of major market dailies including the legendary Sacramento Union.

That was the familiar musical refrain by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young in 1970 in response to the killing of four students at Kent State.

My guess is there will be no songs sung about another four dead and 16 wounded at Fort Hood in Texas yesterday.

There should be.

How is this even possible? I keep hearing that this new slaughter will be a “wake-up call” to the U.S. military. About what? About the problem of post-traumatic stress disorder. Shouldn’t it be a wake-up call to the insanity of disarming U.S. soldiers and other servicemen on military bases? Shouldn’t that wake-up call have come in 2009 when Maj. Nidal Hasan, an Allahu akbar-shouting jihadi psychiatrist, killed 14, including an unborn baby, and wounded 29 others?

Maybe the wake-up call should have come the day before the latest massacre at Fort Hood when Fox News reported: “The FBI is searching for a recent Army recruit believed to be planning a ‘Fort Hood-inspired jihad against U.S. soldiers.'”

Of course, we’re told that threat was unrelated to the Wednesday attack. Just coincidence. But, so what? With a warning like that, what kinds of precautions were taken at the base to guard against another slaughter?

Apparently none in today’s politically correct military that doesn’t trust soldiers and other military servicemen with weapons they are trained to use in exercises and in undeclared foreign wars.

How was the shooter stopped at Fort Hood? He was confronted by ARMED military police and killed himself.

Notice the emphasis on the word “armed.”

That’s why we have a military – because armed force is sometimes the only way to stop violent armed aggression. So why are we disarming our military personnel on military bases? If we haven’t gotten this wake-up call yet, we never will.

Gun-free zones encourage armed aggression. Off the base at Fort Hood, soldiers would be permitted to carry firearms. It’s Texas! Everyone is armed. Notice no such slaughters are taking place elsewhere in the state – only in federally mandated gun-free zones.

Could there be any more obvious cause-and-effect evidence to consider?

How many more Fort Hoods do we need to experience before we get the message?

The political and media establishments just don’t get it. They don’t even talk about this 800-pound gorilla in the room. And they are awfully self-conscious about another aspect of these attacks.

In the Nidal Hasan case, we were told there was no evidence the attack was related to terrorism.

Of course, there were so many indications it was a blatant act of jihadi terrorism, you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice. And the military were up to that challenge.

Hasan had been on federal officials’ radar screen for at least six months prior to the shooting over postings he made on the Internet. He likened a suicide bomber who kills women and children to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to give his life in a “noble cause.”

Intelligence officials also intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan told al-Awlaki in one of the emails, “I can’t wait to join you” in paradise. He also asked al-Awlaki whether it was appropriate to kill innocents in a suicide attack, when jihad was acceptable and how to transfer funds without attracting government notice.

Yet, he was allowed access to weapons and plenty of ammunition on the base.

Hasan called himself a “mujahedeen,” or holy warrior. But the Obama administration labeled his attack an instance of “workplace violence,” not terrorism.

Once again, on Wednesday, before the shooting had even stopped, before the attacker was even identified, and in spite of the publicized threat on Fort Hood published the day before, the news media and public officials were all-but certain what was still happening had no connection to terrorism.

What does this tell you?

This kind of willful blindness to reality represents official criminal malfeasance of the highest order.